In this article, I first interpret and evaluate the main argument of E. V. R. Kojonen's book, The Compatibility of Evolution and Design. I then address a challenge against this argument (as well as against design arguments in general), namely, the problem of seemingly malevolent and bad designs in nature. Evolutionary theodicists commonly deal with this problem by assuming that the evolutionary process is not fully under God's control. This solution, however, is deeply problematic from the perspective of classical theism. (...) I therefore suggest another approach to the problem, inspired by the thought of Thomas Aquinas. (shrink)

This article engages Kojonen's discussion of scientific explanation. Kojonen claims the best way to conceptualize the relationship between evolutionary explanations and explanation by design is through the proximate-ultimate distinction and the levels metaphor. However, these are not robust explanatory models but examples of how one might differentiate ambiguous explananda contained in why-questions. Disambiguating explananda is a helpful tool for determining when a situation calls for further explanation; however, on this picture, that some further explanation is needed does not, as proponents (...) of design arguments assume, specify design. The question of whether design is a good explanation at all hinges on what precisely we want explained. (shrink)

In the recent book The Compatibility of Evolution and Design, E. V. R. Kojonen argues that a biological design inference is still possible in light of mainstream evolutionary theory and that evolution and design need not be in explanatory tension. This collection of essays is the product of a symposium held in March 2022, which interacted with the claims of the book. Contributors come from diverse academic backgrounds across philosophy, science, and theology, and both critique and extend Kojonen's argument. Here, (...) each contribution is introduced along with some important connections between them and key questions which remain open. (shrink)

Rope Kojonen has presented a novel argument for design in biology by drawing on insights from evolutionary science. Without objecting to the explanatory role of evolution, he argues that there is further explanatory work to be done and that this is best achieved by an appeal to design. Here, I interpret his argument, and attempt to evaluate it, as a conjunctive explanation since he appeals to two explanations to account for the purposeful order and complexity of living organisms. Understood in (...) this way, I argue that he makes a very plausible case that two explanations (evolution and design) are better than one (evolution). I also explore the role that direct guidance by God might play in such an argument. (shrink)

Denis Alexander, David Glass, Peter Jeavons, Meghan Page, Bethany Sollereder, and Mats Wahlberg have offered interpretations, critique, and defenses of E. V. R. Kojonen's book The Compatibility of Evolution and Design. Here, Kojonen responds to their comments on wideranging issues related to the teleology and evolution, from models of God as Creator to the meaning of randomness and design.

The effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms is one of the issues discussed in The Compatibility of Evolution and Design, where it is argued that such algorithms are only effective when stringent preconditions are met. This article considers this issue from the perspective of computer science. It explores the properties of problems that can be effectively solved by evolutionary algorithms, and the extent to which such algorithms need to be carefully adjusted. Although there are important differences between the study of evolutionary algorithms (...) in computer science and the study of biological evolution, it is argued that the experience of computer science can help to strengthen the claim that evolutionary mechanisms generally require a considerable degree of fine-tuning. (shrink)